Aliens Thread

[Irish YJ]

It isn't naive to think we are alone if you believe that life must be started by an intelligent designer, no matter how hospitable to life conditions are.

There had to be someone/something to plant the grass seed if you will.

If one buys into intelligent design, why would we assume we are the only design to come from that intelligence? Just because we're special?

And if abiogenesis is correct (scientist are very close to duplicating now), where did our design begin. The protein? The big bang? Something bigger? We only pivoted from creationism to intelligent once creationism became such a stretch that the courts had to decide. Does intelligent design simply state, that no matter what we find or understand, there will always be another door behind another door?

 

[Circa]

If one buys into intelligent design, why would we assume we are the only design to come from that intelligence? Just because we're special?

And if abiogenesis is correct (scientist are very close to duplicating now), where did our design begin. The protein? The big bang? Something bigger? We only pivoted from creationism to intelligent once creationism became such a stretch that the courts had to decide. Does intelligent design simply state, that no matter what we find or understand, there will always be another door behind another door?

I guess we'll see what happens...<iframe src="https://giphy.com/embed/3o6Zt11R527fgtrIJO" width="480" height="350" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="https://giphy.com/gifs/usnationalarchives-vintage-physics-3o6Zt11R527fgtrIJO">via GIPHY</a></p>

 

[Irish YJ]

I guess we'll see what happens...<iframe src="https://giphy.com/embed/3o6Zt11R527fgtrIJO" width="480" height="350" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="https://giphy.com/gifs/usnationalarchives-vintage-physics-3o6Zt11R527fgtrIJO">via GIPHY</a></p>

maybe, maybe not. what if death is just another door, behind another door.....

 

[Circa]

maybe, maybe not. what if death is just another door, behind another door.....

Yes, and (death) can be a very scary thought process. I've heard we are incapable of the thought of our own death for more than a minute or so because It's so benign. <iframe src="https://giphy.com/embed/l0K464CnkBU4XmQlq" width="480" height="240" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="https://giphy.com/gifs/c4d-hardscience-eternal-hand-l0K464CnkBU4XmQlq"

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

Benign?

I've heard the argument that for a big bang to occur, there must've been a big banger. And given everything we experience in our lives, it makes sense.

But when we abstract far enough out of the frame, it's just as reasonable that the universe has always existed. I don't know that either side is a compelling argument.

 

[Irish YJ]

Benign?

I've heard the argument that for a big bang to occur, there must've been a big banger. And given everything we experience in our lives, it makes sense.

But when we abstract far enough out of the frame, it's just as reasonable that the universe has always existed. I don't know that either side is a compelling argument.

But intelligent design wouldn't support a universe that always existed. Something had to design it.

if a bigger bang, caused the big bang, did the biggest bang cause the bigger bang, and so on. just goofing on the limits of, and endless mental gymnastics of ID.

i didn't get the benign reference either.

 

[Sea Turtle]

If one buys into intelligent design, why would we assume we are the only design to come from that intelligence? Just because we're special?

And if abiogenesis is correct (scientist are very close to duplicating now), where did our design begin. The protein? The big bang? Something bigger? We only pivoted from creationism to intelligent once creationism became such a stretch that the courts had to decide. Does intelligent design simply state, that no matter what we find or understand, there will always be another door behind another door?

I don't think Intelligent Design apologists deny the possibility that life was started elsewhere by a more intelligent being.
The whole intelligent designer theory came out of younger biochemists and chemical biologists who became disenchanted with darwinian evolution. The complex informatiin exchanges like tiny machines at the molecular level became too much for them.

They don't even say it's necessarily God, a god or gods. It could be aliens in spaceships seeding planets. Beings from another dimension, etc. Religion has latched on to this because they can point to it and claim that the designer is God.
I personally don't believe in life on other planets but I do hold out a 1% chance since the Bible is silent on the subject.

 

[Irish YJ]

I don't think Intelligent Design apologists deny the possibility that life was started elsewhere by a more intelligent being.
The whole intelligent designer theory came out of younger biochemists and chemical biologists who became disenchanted with darwinian evolution. The complex informatiin exchanges like tiny machines at the molecular level became too much for them.

They don't even say it's necessarily God, a god or gods. It could be aliens in spaceships seeding planets. Beings from another dimension, etc. Religion has latched on to this because they can point to it and claim that the designer is God.
I personally don't believe in life on other planets but I do hold out a 1% chance since the Bible is silent on the subject.

Thaxton was a creationist at heart. ID may not name a god, but it was a Christian construct, created to attract other Christians as an convenient out. It was simply an evolution of creationism (pardon the pun). It's flawed though, because just like creationism, it will soon run into a wall of science. We're on the verge of replicating how proteins and cell walls were created naturally. Things ID claimed to be too complex to be natural selection.

While I agree in principal that it doesn't say god, and does not eliminate the otherworldly alien connection, the majority of Christians would indeed reject the notion. I know the Baptist and JW on my mother's side sure as heck reject it. And the majority of the Catholics on my father's side reject it. If aliens came down and said, "hey we pulled a Prometheus on you", the next Christian would say well God had to create you, because you're so complex and didn't occur naturally.

I believe in God, and I guess you could say I have a view similar in ways to IDs... but mine is not built on notions that will run into walls of science. I'm simply content to have faith, while believing Genesis was simply a book chosen by men in an attempt to instill wisdom. I mean the origin of the the book is still debated, but at least it's not directly credited to Moses anymore. In short, I believe in God, but i also believe we should accept things on faith without feeling the need to understand, or explain. I love STA, but I don't need the 5 Proofs either. The Church (men in the Church) have made a career of trying to create, explain, and defend a narrative. So much so, that it became more important than the core concepts themselves.

Anyway, tangent alert... back to Aliens. Aliens, or even men replicating life "naturally", shakes the foundation of ID, and creates a new pivot. Aliens simply coming down and saying hey, we've watched the earth over the last 5B years and witnessed your evolution from CH and C 4B years ago, to your uber primitive selves today. It was a wonderful but boring story... Now all of sudden CH and C which are accidentally/naturally created by by stars is the origin of life... How many Christians and other religions would say "hey, thanks. that makes sense. we had it all wrong" lol. Pivot again!

 

[Sea Turtle]

Thaxton was a creationist at heart. ID may not name a god, but it was a Christian construct, created to attract other Christians as an convenient out. It was simply an evolution of creationism (pardon the pun). It's flawed though, because just like creationism, it will soon run into a wall of science. We're on the verge of replicating how proteins and cell walls were created naturally. Things ID claimed to be too complex to be natural selection.

While I agree in principal that it doesn't say god, and does not eliminate the otherworldly alien connection, the majority of Christians would indeed reject the notion. I know the Baptist and JW on my mother's side sure as heck reject it. And the majority of the Catholics on my father's side reject it. If aliens came down and said, "hey we pulled a Prometheus on you", the next Christian would say well God had to create you, because you're so complex and didn't occur naturally.

I believe in God, and I guess you could say I have a view similar in ways to IDs... but mine is not built on notions that will run into walls of science. I'm simply content to have faith, while believing Genesis was simply a book chosen by men in an attempt to instill wisdom. I mean the origin of the the book is still debated, but at least it's not directly credited to Moses anymore. In short, I believe in God, but i also believe we should accept things on faith without feeling the need to understand, or explain. I love STA, but I don't need the 5 Proofs either. The Church (men in the Church) have made a career of trying to create, explain, and defend a narrative. So much so, that it became more important than the core concepts themselves.

Anyway, tangent alert... back to Aliens. Aliens, or even men replicating life "naturally", shakes the foundation of ID, and creates a new pivot. Aliens simply coming down and saying hey, we've watched the earth over the last 5B years and witnessed your evolution from CH and C 4B years ago, to your uber primitive selves today. It was a wonderful but boring story... Now all of sudden CH and C which are accidentally/naturally created by by stars is the origin of life... How many Christians and other religions would say "hey, thanks. that makes sense. we had it all wrong" lol. Pivot again!

Being on the verge of replicating those things proves the opposite in my opinion. That, in itself, is ID and takes away the 'chance' and natural selection out of it occurring naturally. It's taken mankind to reach the year 2019 to replicate a couple of processes that an IDer designed millions or billions of years ago? That kind of says alot.
It's too complex for evolutionary randomness and natural selection, but not too complex for design or replication in my humble opinion.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

But intelligent design wouldn't support a universe that always existed. Something had to design it.

if a bigger bang, caused the big bang, did the biggest bang cause the bigger bang, and so on. just goofing on the limits of, and endless mental gymnastics of ID.

i didn't get the benign reference either.

Agreed on the bolded but I'm not sure it was meant for me. I'm not an ID'er per se. I can accept a benevolent creator, an ambivalent designer or a cold, ultimately pointless existence.

Each present a difficulty to contend with: the flawed nature of humanity in charge of God' chosen, a creator who isn't vested in his creation or being the product of chance with only this moment guaranteed and nothing after.

Each of those is subjective to a point but it's where I'm at personally. I enjoy the mental gymnastics but I'm not currently tied to it. I do find myself always defaulting to being a humanist because I believe species preservation can be shared in all of those world frameworks. This ultimately leads me to being a natural law pragmatist and drops me at the door of Catholicism. (and chanting the Latin Agnus Dei has been one of the most beautiful, out of world experiences I've had)

I think consistency is valuable for a species regardless of the universe's origin (or lack thereof) unless you want to be a nihilist.

 

[Irish YJ]

Being on the verge of replicating those things proves the opposite in my opinion. That, in itself, is ID and takes away the 'chance' and natural selection out of it occurring naturally. It's taken mankind to reach the year 2019 to replicate a couple of processes that an IDer designed millions or billions of years ago? That kind of says alot.
It's too complex for evolutionary randomness and natural selection, but not too complex for design or replication in my humble opinion.

 

[Irish YJ]

Agreed on the bolded but I'm not sure it was meant for me. I'm not an ID'er per se. I can accept a benevolent creator, an ambivalent designer or a cold, ultimately pointless existence.

Each present a difficulty to contend with: the flawed nature of humanity in charge of God' chosen, a creator who isn't vested in his creation or being the product of chance with only this moment guaranteed and nothing after.

Each of those is subjective to a point but it's where I'm at personally. I enjoy the mental gymnastics but I'm not currently tied to it. I do find myself always defaulting to being a humanist because I believe species preservation can be shared in all of those world frameworks. This ultimately leads me to being a natural law pragmatist and drops me at the door of Catholicism. (and chanting the Latin Agnus Dei has been one of the most beautiful, out of world experiences I've had)

I think consistency is valuable for a species regardless of the universe's origin (or lack thereof) unless you want to be a nihilist.

I'm not tied to it either. Fun sometimes, frustrating sometimes, etc.. Our (human) nature drives many of us to seek understanding, and explain everything. And I love explanations lol. I also am comfortable knowing that there are many things that will never be explained, either in my lifetime (but later due to scientific advancement), or ever (great mysteries). And I'm OK with that. And I'm definitely no nihilist, but I do find some arguments in different ranges (like moral nihilism) interesting.